In an order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed M/s Raheja Developers Limited to refund over ₹1.19 crore to Delhi residents, along with nine percent interest, after they failed to receive the flat they had booked. Raheja had argued for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that another complaint had been filed with Haryana RERA, that there was a clause for arbitration in the agreement, and that the allotment had been cancelled due to the complainants' failure to meet payment demands. However, the commission determined that the case brought before it preceded the one filed with HRERA. The complainants were making payments according to a "construction link payment plan," but as construction had come to a halt, the demands for payment were deemed unauthorised, leading to the cancellation of the allotment being set aside.
Complainant had booked flat in Gurgaon housing project in 2011
The order was issued by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, the presiding member, and Dr. Inderjit Singh, a member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This order was made in response to a complaint filed by Delhi residents Virender Goel and J.P. Gupta against M/s Raheja Developers Ltd., based in New Delhi. Raheja had introduced a group housing project called "Raheja Revanta" in Gurgaon back in 2011, promoting its various amenities and facilities. The complainants decided to book a flat and made an initial deposit of ₹14.42 lakhs in November 2011. Subsequently, they deposited an additional amount of ₹21.64 lakhs by May 2012. Raheja issued an allotment letter for a flat, with a total cost of ₹1.64 crore, and executed an agreement for the same in the building named "Surya Tower."
Possession was to be given in 2 years
According to the agreement, the payment plan agreed upon was a "construction link payment plan," and the possession of the flat was scheduled to be given within two years, with a grace period of six months. Considering the grace period, the complainants were supposed to receive possession of the flat by December 2016. Following Raheja's demands, the complainants deposited a total of ₹1.19 crore until October 2015. In August 2016, when Raheja requested further payment, the complainants inquired about the anticipated date of possession. They were informed that the possession would be handed over by the last quarter of 2017. However, upon inspection by the complainants, it was discovered that the construction work on the tower had come to a halt. When they raised the issue, they were informed that the construction had been halted due to the presence of a high-tension power line passing through the middle of the complex. Raheja assured the complainants that efforts were being made to relocate the power line and revised the construction schedule to December 2018.
In May 2017, Raheja sent a letter to the complainants, notifying them about the cancellation of their allotment. When the complainants visited the construction site, they discovered that the number of floors in the tower had been increased, which prompted them to request the cancellation of their allotment. Subsequently, in July 2017, they sought a refund with interest. However, despite sending a notice, the complainants did not receive any reply from Raheja. As a result, they decided to file a consumer complaint.
Home buyers defaulting on payment caused shortage of funds: Raheja
Presenting its case before the Commission, Raheja argued that the construction delays were caused by "force majeure reasons" and should be forgiven under the agreement's clauses that allowed for compensation in case of delays. They claimed that several home buyers defaulted on their payments, resulting in a shortage of funds. Additionally, the presence of a high-tension electricity line passing through the project caused further delays as the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) took an unreasonable amount of time to relocate it underground. Furthermore, the acquisition of land along the Dwarka Expressway became entangled in litigation, adding to the project's setbacks. Raheja further emphasized that despite the passing of 10 years, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had failed to provide basic infrastructure facilities such as roads, sewer lines, water lines, and electricity supply, despite Raheja and other builders having made payments for the same. They supported their claims by referring to Google images taken in July 2017 as evidence. Raheja assured the Commission that they were making every effort to expedite the completion of the project.
Raheja argued that the complainants did not adhere to the payment plan and failed to deposit the installments when demanded in August 2016, resulting in the cancellation of the agreement. They contended that the increase in the number of floors was in accordance with the provisions outlined in the agreement. Moreover, Raheja pointed out that the agreement included a clause for arbitration to resolve any disputes, suggesting that the complaint should be dismissed on that basis. They also presented a complaint filed by the Revanta Gurgaon Flat Buyers Association with Haryana RERA (HRERA), which sought permission for the association to carry out the remaining development work of the "Raheja Revanta" project. The counsel representing Raheja mentioned that Virender Goel was a founder member of the Revanta Gurgaon Flat Buyers Association. Since the association had filed a complaint under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, they argued that this complaint should be dismissed based on the principle of choosing an appropriate remedy, known as the doctrine of election.
Commission termed Raheja's cancellation of allotment "illegal"
The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed before the one filed before HRERA and that "This complaint, being prior in time, cannot be dismissed". The Commission stated that complainants had been paying installments on the start of 25th, 35th, 40th and 45 floor slab among others besides paying for water and electricity installation charges as demanded by Raheja from time to time and that when they visited the spot, there was no construction. This, commission said that "it is proved that all these demands were unauthorised."
The commission unequivocally declared that Raheja's cancellation of the allotment was deemed "illegal." They emphasized that in a "construction link payment plan," it was improper for demands to be made without reaching the construction stage. Noting that Raheja acknowledged the delay was caused by the presence of a high-tension power line passing through the project and considering the grace period already provided, the commission referred to relevant case laws that established buyers should not be made to wait indefinitely. The commission explicitly directed Raheja to comply with the order within a timeframe of two months.
